The decline of public debate.

• Author: Zarefsky, David

A central idea of many theories of society, whether they are concerned with social structure, power, or communication, is the public sphere. "Sphere" does not refer to a physical shape or place, but to an orientation or perspective for activity. When people converse with their spouses, for instance, they draw from a private sphere in which the claims and grounds are significant only for them. When they participate in discussions about their work, they typically partake of a professional or technical sphere, where the norms and grounds for argument are shared by a specialized group, but are meaningless to others.

The public sphere differs from both of these. The adjective "public" has a dual meaning. First, what is public is open and available for inspection by others. Second, public matters are those that affect individuals generically, as persons or as citizens, without regard to personal identity and regardless of whether they participate in the conversation. Public matters are those of common concern.

Just as the public sphere is not a physical place, it is not an empirical condition. Rather, it is a norm by which discourse and action are guided. The public sphere represents the ideal of full and equal participation and deliberation by those with interests in a decision. It shuttles between unbridled individualism and unchecked collectivism, between rampant self-interest and totalitarian rule, between freedom and social order. In many critiques of society, from wherever they come, there is the sense that the health and vitality of the public sphere are at risk.

Although it had earlier roots, commitment to the public sphere is of 18th-century origin. In England and Europe, it developed in the milieu of the salons, coffee houses, and table societies that brought strangers together in conversation. Since people often did not know each other, they could not appeal to the personal values of their listeners. Instead, the issues and appeals became general in content and significance.

An American version of the public sphere evolved during the nation's first decades. In an important sense, the dispute between the Federalists and Antifederalists over ratification of the Constitution was about the nature of the public sphere. What would protect the new nation against exchanging tyranny of the King for tyranny of the mob? The answer was that the government should be administered by men of virtue, and virtue meant the preference of the general interest over individual self-interest.

Where were virtuous men to be found? The Antifederalists argued that they were found only in small republics, where citizens could get together to deliberate about matters that directly affected them. The Federalists, though, were more distrustful of human nature. They thought the majority incapable of rising above self-interest, yet capable of identifying those among themselves who could. The task of the representatives was not to mirror, but to filter the wishes of their constituents in order to approximate the norms of the public sphere.

The history of...